Whether "greed is good" or not, the first step is addressing it would seem to require the recognition that greed is a _reality_, not just a figment of the imagination of certain left-leaning economists.

In many important respects, that's what Marx did. But greed won that fight too.

If we accept that greed is a reality buried deep in our humanity, then I think we start to understand that the only way to moderate it is to find a way to make it work against itself. Not "government checking greed," but "greed checking greed."

War in all its forms, is in many ways that principle in action: greed acting against greed. Unfortunately, it's almost always the least greedy that end up paying the highest price for that approach. And in the end, greed is only redistributed, not checked.

Policy architects need to find a way to turn Mies van der Rohe's "less is more" into "more is LESS."

Do corporations have social responsibilities beyond their legal ones? In my view, the role of corporations should simply be to optimize the efficiency of their economic activities within the legal framework in which they operate, no more, no less. By contrast, it is the role of governments to ensure that this legal framework reflects the preferences of society and to mediate the efficiency-equity trade-off involved in this situation. In my view, taking money out of politics and increasing the level of public education regarding policy-relevant topics would go most of the way in terms of realigning the objectives and capacities of politics with the "public good", without requiring corporations to become "good Samaritans" - something they were never meant to be and can hardly become.

Agree with the fundamental view that government is the only agency with any hope of checking capital's excesses -- and that it's failure to do so is near the core of the current dangers we face as a species. But that's no new discovery -- even Adam Smith recognized the danger implicit in allowing the merchants to take over the government.

You have broached two related topics of particular interest to me:a) the possibility of (some person, human or legal) conceiving and implementing “goods and services that would improve the lives of their fellowmen” and thereby “help to build a better world”, and,b) the tendency of experts, especially with respect to economic matters, to be oriented toward policy.

The latter impulse impels experts to major in diagnosis of what ails economies and societies, often rigorously and convincingly. But, with respect to possible remedies, they default to advocacy of reforms which typically entail prescriptions for government policies.

The problem with this is that policy prescriptions rest on several imperatives. To be embraced requires an outbreak of right thinking - a broad (enough) recognition (and defeat) of the folly, incoherency and perhaps even the vile underlying motives of alternative schools of thought. Right thinking would then enable emergence of the degree of consensus required to influence discretionary policies or to amend legislation/regulation. And of course, the imperative aspect does not stop there. Once memorialized in enactments of the state, these policies compel obedience, just as losers in any political contest must submit to the dictates of the winners.

My life’s work entails developing and refining a specific integrated offering of goods and services, systematically focused on a foundational layer of economic activity and introduced via a market-based (i.e. non-coercive) commercial undertaking. If valid, and successful in the sense of becoming self-sustaining on the basis of operating revenues, its efficacy would not hinge on consensus, broad agreement with, or even understanding of, its principles. The core problem domain addressed is money and payments though broader applications are inherent.

Unlike the contradictions inherent in either direct or representative democracy, it would afford a harnessing of collective wisdom enabling automatic self-adjustment without the latency and reflexivity of discretionary monetary and fiscal policy processes. As such, I assert it to represent a “Gordian Knot” severing solution, capable of catalyzing both a much needed “Great Reset” and of fostering subsequent emergence of a credible and sustainable successor paradigm. None of this would entail impinging on any of the prerogatives of the state even though the emergent system would likely result in a beneficial entrainment of discretionary policy determinations worldwide.

Once again, tight environmental regulation needs to be global. If it isn't , then it's going to become another form of dumping which the surplus economies are going to manipulate at will in order to maintain their competitive advantage. But since global regulation is impossible, then so is tight domestic regulation.

Enough is enough. Stiglitz isn't any better than the CEOs he's so eager to criticize. It's not a problem of education and infrastructure. It's a problem of uncontrolled trade and capital flows. Once these are reigned, countries are once again going to be able to spend freely on their domestic economies, with no fear of spill-outs on imports. But for as long as trade and capital flows remain free, only fiscal tightening will do the trick, with the predictable recessionary results in deficit economies.

Isn't Stiglitz self-contradicting here? On one hand he agrees that the rejection of globalization is justified, but on the other he doesn't like Trump's rejection of international institutions (who lay at the core of globalization), or his decrease of public expenditures (which will correct the US' imbalances as per the current framework, since proper Keynesian measures would simply add to the import-surge the US experiences).

I don't think so. Contrary to what may appear, Stiglitz has never opposed globalization in itself, as the gains in terms of efficiency are massive. However, he has always expressed sympathy for those left behind or displaced by globalization (see "Globalization and Its Discontents"). I also disagree that Keynesian measures would necessarily exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit; a well-designed public expenditure programme aimed at improving U.S. infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges), healthcare, and research would mostly increase the demand for non-tradable goods and services.

I don't think so. Contrary to what may appear, Stiglitz has never opposed globalization in itself, as the gains in terms of efficiency are massive. However, he has always expressed sympathy for those left behind or displaced by globalization (see "Globalization and Its Discontents"). I also disagree that Keynesian measures would necessarily exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit; a well-designed public expenditure programme aimed at improving U.S. infrastructure (e.g. roads and bridges), healthcare, and research would mostly increase the demand for non-tradable goods and services.

It is very disturbing that despite the majority of Americans were against tax reform, as the economy seemed to be in a good place, this tax reform was pushed right through without regard to what most Americans felt. The people are being ignored in a way that I have never witnessed.

If Mr. Stiglitz could somehow explain how it is possible to tax corporations I would appreciate hearing it. Until he does I will continue to believe it is logically impossible, and only people can pay taxes.

I think the original idea of a corporate income tax was sold by politicians, to voters, as a way to have someone else pay their taxes for them, rather than having to pay them themselves.

That's a fine political tradition, as Voltaire noted in 1764, "In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other."

Automation, AI, IoT, Manufacturing 4.0, LinkedIn, Davos and similar meetings - all going in the same direction to enable the privileged to organise and accumulate wealth more rapidly. Unless the political system can facilitate incremental adaptation to the disruptive forces from technology, then change may have to happen the old-fashioned way. And, the trickle-down tax cuts won't facilitate strategic investments in skills and education needed to enable higher productivity and more equality in the information age.

Joe has written another exceptionally insightful and perspicacious piece.

He summarizes brilliantly, the duplicity, deceit and guile of the dissemblers in Davos who try to trick the hoi polloi with their mealy-mouthed, dishonest utterances.

Joe's article is a further reminder (as it any more should be needed) that it is only a matter of time before the burning torches and pitchforks will be marching once again. If only we had the brains to see where this road that we are on is leading, but alas......

It's indeed a evolutionary problem which manifests in more ways than economics and greed. The single persons power to harm is growing rapidly through technological advancement while humanity is mired in stone age tit-for-tat morality. What if the next doomsday cult hacks into the future fleet of self driving cars or that bullied teen 3d-prints a shotgun?

Stiglitz manages to ignore Rodrik's trilemma. Eliminate democracy - the "role" of the masses - and one is left with only the state and the economy. One has one form of coercive power, the other another. It's the good old days again, with direct conflict made clearer without the demos interfering. Politics simplified! Wasteful elections eliminated! New opiates for the hoi polloi! As the rich and powerful have more skin in the game, let them skin each other. Isn't that THE lesson of history?

Maybe the "system" hasn't failed but people like Stiglitz and his followers have failed? Rather than turning their intelligence to creating the goods and services that would improve the lives of their fellowmen, and along the way creating meaningful and rewarding employment as well, they have turned their intelligence to merely finding fault and caviling. They spread discord, appeal to resentment and envy, and foment destruction, rather than help to build a better world.

I disagree with you here. You implied that Stiglitz and his followers may have failed by not creating goods and services that would improve the lives of their fellowmen. It is not just the responsibility of the economists to create employment that is meaningful and rewarding. It is largely the responsibility of the corporations, who benefited the most from the new tax laws. The entire idea seemed to be that giving corporations large tax cuts, they would provide better jobs and salaries to improve the lives of their fellow Americans. The premise being that we rely on the goodness of ones heart to do the right thing, when they, corporations, have benefited the most. Stiglitz did a wonderful job in his assessments and spoke what most of Americans realize is true. Corporations will not necessarily create more jobs or give higher salaries. Greed supersedes the goodness of the heart in this case. I don't feel a sense of discord or resentment towards corporations or the wealthy. I am however very disappointed in the present administration who wield the power to those they feel are worthy, rather than listening to the voices of the people.

I disagree with you here. You implied that Stiglitz and his followers may have failed by not creating goods and services that would improve the lives of their fellowmen. It is not just the responsibility of the economists to create employment that is meaningful and rewarding. It is largely the responsibility of the corporations, who benefited the most from the new tax laws. The entire idea seemed to be that giving corporations large tax cuts, they would provide better jobs and salaries to improve the lives of their fellow Americans. The premise being that we rely on the goodness of ones heart to do the right thing, when they, corporations, have benefited the most. Stiglitz did a wonderful job in his assessments and spoke what most of Americans realize is true. Corporations will not necessarily create more jobs or give higher salaries. Greed supersedes the goodness of the heart in this case. I don't feel a sense of discord or resentment towards corporations or the wealthy. I am however very disappointed in the present administration who wield the power to those they feel are worthy, rather than listening to the voices of the people.

I disagree with you here. You implied that Stiglitz and his followers may have failed by not creating goods and services that would improve the lives of their fellowmen. It is not just the responsibility of the economists to create employment that is meaningful and rewarding. It is largely the responsibility of the corporations, who benefited the most from the new tax laws. The entire idea seemed to be that giving corporations large tax cuts, they would provide better jobs and salaries to improve the lives of their fellow Americans. The premise being that we rely on the goodness of ones heart to do the right thing, when they, corporations, have benefited the most. Stiglitz did a wonderful job in his assessments and spoke what most of Americans realize is true. Corporations will not necessarily create more jobs or give higher salaries. Greed supersedes the goodness of the heart in this case. I don't feel a sense of discord or resentment towards corporations or the wealthy. I am however very disappointed in the present administration who wield the power to those they feel are worthy, rather than listening to the voices of the people.

Davos capitalists are proving no better than their German counterparts who, with few exceptions, enthusiastically rallied behind Hitler. Human rights and democracy were just window dressing once profits, however made, were at stake.

Hitler at least delivered on infrastructure (and armaments) before the unsustainability of his growth model culminated in disastrous war and war crimes.

Trump may well only deliver on the latter and entirely skip the former.

I was in Davos and Klosters in the winter of 1960 when I was still a student. The skiing was magnificent. I agree very much with what Joseph Stiglitz has written in this article, but have been frustrated over the years because academic economists and others have failed to call out professional, political, banking and corporate leadership for their greediness going back decades. After Cambridge, where I studied engineering and economics, I qualified as a Chartered Accountant and in my early career was a very young CFO in the USA as computerization made it possible to create management information systems that improved profit performance significantly. Later in my life I did consulting work for the World Bank, the UN and others and saw first hand the poverty and lack of opportunity available to most of the world's people. Sadly we only use finance and information technology to make business profit and create financial wealth for owners when we ought to be using these resources to make it possible for everyone to have a better life and make industry environmentally efficient. We can do better ... much better ... and some business, city and state leaders are talking about more responsible behavior, but the metrics (numbering) to manage for this a still missing. A new paradigm for accounting and accountability will help! Peter Burgess .... http://truevaluemetrics.org

Joe why are you bashing Trump he is the only one that can fix the mess you globalized economists have cauased by letting these global elites have the freedom of movement to arbitrage labor and capital at will.

In German there is a word for "curiosity" that is telling , it's the word "Neugier", made of neu/new and Gier/greed. It might be curiosity combined with greed that allowed us to not be wiped out periodically by the bubonic plague and other distant cousins of ours, and to communicate with people worldwide on a daily basis and so on. However if the likes of Peter Thiel are right about innovation having essentially stalled, except for digital stuff, and innovation doesn't restart in a meaningful way, the greed might loose its indirect constructivity and the wolfpacks incarnating it reined in by some communistoid process.

Michael, a CEOs first responsibility is to their shareholders. Many shareholders have abdicated their responsibility as owners of the business and do not provide guidance which a is failure in duty of care. That was the root of the Gt Recession with banks. That and a lack of governance. For example - Apple and Google execs have said they work within the rules re tax avoidance and that if you dont like it then change the rules. The problem is there is not the resource applied from the governance side, capital can move quickly and governance moves slowly. Its an imbalance in governance that is being exploited to exploit inequality which is just a wealth transfer. There than is a rush to secure imbalance to maintain parity with competitors before a door may close. It all comes back to governance. Then you come to the consumer - if a well known global coffee chain had no customers at all due to a boycott they would be gone in 90 days, as would a well know global fizzy drink corporation

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.